Proposition 50K0818

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 23, § 1er, de la loi électorale communale et l'article 11, § 1er, de la loi électorale provinciale, en ce qui concerne le nom des femmes-candidates.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

April 17, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

gender equality municipality local election organisation of elections province election

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

March 22, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill I propose you to approve aims to remedy an injustice resulting from certain provisions of the law of 29 April 1999 on the monetary career of magistrates. This law has assimilated the heads of bodies of the courts of first instance whose jurisdiction has 250,000 inhabitants, to those of the courts of first instance whose jurisdiction has 500,000 inhabitants. This law concerned only the magistrates, so that the monetary career of the secretaries and secretaries, which was, until then, aligned with that of the magistrates, was dissociated from it. Therefore, the criterion of first or second-class courts has continued to be used to determine the treatment of these members of the judicial order. The bill proposes the abolition of this system.

During the general discussion, Mr. Van Parys supported the objective of this bill and proposed to take advantage of this discussion to remove another inequality. Currently, only the presidents of the courts located in the major districts can appoint a secretary to assist them as secretary of cabinet. by Mr. Van Parys therefore submitted an amendment aiming to also grant a cabinet secretary to the presidents of courts located in mid-range districts. During the general discussion, Mr. Thierry Giet referred to the bill he submitted to abolish the distribution of classes of peacekeepers.

The Minister of Justice submitted an amendment that took into account the suggestion made by Mr. Van Parys and who went even beyond, since this amendment also allowed the heads of bodies of the prosecutors to designate a cabinet secretary. This amendment was adopted unanimously.

In addition, colleagues Tony Van Parys and Servais Verherstraeten submitted an amendment aimed at reducing the differences existing in terms of monetary careers between the chief secretaries of the first-class cantonal peace courts and those of the second-class cantonal peace courts. The Minister of Justice replied that the distinction still applicable to the chief secretaries of the peacekeepers in matters of treatment will in principle disappear on 1 September 2001 when the law of 25 March 1999 on the reform of the judicial cantons comes into force. The entire draft law, as amended, was adopted by the committee with 9 votes and 5 abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mrs. Barzin for her excellent report. The problem that we have addressed in the committee, she has identified very precisely. We have submitted our two amendments. Our amendments aim to equalize the main graffiti of the first and second-class peacekeeping courts on a monetary level. I think there is no discussion about this.

The Minister of Justice has said in the committee that this will no longer be a problem from September as the distinction between first and second class is eliminated thanks to the law of 25 March 1999. At a closer look, however, this does not appear to be correct. Following the law of 25 March 1999, 31 cantons of first class remained. These are cantons with a population of less than 50,000.

Our amendment is therefore indeed necessary to eliminate the discrimination in the monetary status of the chief greffers of first and second-class peacekeepers. There are therefore two possibilities. Either our amendment is approved, or it is reviewed again in the committee. We will then be able to prove that the law of 25 March 1999 did not solve the problem. This statement was, however, defended by the minister, but it appears to be incorrect by closer examination.

Since there is no discussion about the substance of the case – there should be no distinction between the secretaries of first and second-class peace courts – there is no discussion, I would like to ask the majority to approve this amendment. Otherwise, I would like to ask the chairman of the committee to put this point on the agenda of the committee next week.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that this bill be returned to the Justice Committee. That way, this issue can be re-treated next week Tuesday.

This bill will be returned to the Justice Committee. Mr. Erdman, this bill will be returned to your committee before it comes here again. It is better to prevent than to cure.

This bill aims to increase the treatment supplement for specialized tax substitutes. This financial incentive is necessary in order to attract enough candidates to occupy these functions and to ensure that they remain in service. The difference between the remuneration of these specialized magistrates and that of private workers, having received the same training and possessing the same knowledge, remains in fact considerable.

During the general discussion in the Commission, Mr. Fred Erdman asked whether the Minister could not take advantage of the opportunity to also grant a treatment supplement for bilingualism, question to which the Minister of Justice replied that a bill concerning the granting of a bilingualism premium had been submitted to the Council of Ministers and that the said bill would be finalised within the framework of the overall settlement of the Brussels problem.

Regarding the discussion of articles and votes, the government has submitted an amendment to change the system applied so far for the award of premiums for night or weekend benefits. Under that system, the premium was granted as soon as the magistrate assumed eighteen night or weekend benefits, which was unfair in so far as the magistrate who assumed seventeen such benefits was in principle not entitled to such a premium, whereas the magistrate who assumed, in the course of the same year, only one more than the latter was entitled to the whole of the premium. Therefore, the government proposed that in the future, each benefit be remunerated and that the amount allocated per benefit be increased. This amendment was adopted unanimously.

In addition, the Minister of Justice submitted another amendment aimed at adjusting the amounts of the premiums granted in view of the introduction of the euro on 1 January 2002. The bill was unanimously adopted by the Justice Committee.

May 3, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

As a rapporteur, I refer to my written report. On behalf of my group, I would like to ask Minister Reynders a concrete question. During the first meiveries, a number of socialist leaders have explicitly pledged for a rapid abolition of the system of the shares of toonder, this in the context of the fight against tax fraud. I heard during the committee discussions on the draft on the dematerialization of state loans that Minister Reynders is opposed to that abolition. Could the Minister confirm this?

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, our committee met twice, on 19 December 2000 and on 18 April 2001, to examine and discuss the bill in question, which had been submitted by the Senate where it was adopted in plenary session on 13 July 2000, as well as the bill proposal of Mr. Speaker. Pierre Lano was there.

In his introductory presentation, the Minister of the Interior explained to us the objectives of these two texts: 1) as regards the bill, allowing divorced candidate women to use the name of their ex-husband in municipal and provincial elections, with the consent of the latter, of course; 2) as regards the bill, eliminate for married or widow candidate women the possibility of having their name preceded the name of their spouse in municipal and provincial elections. by Mr. The Minister noted that he had no objections of principle to these texts.

At the meeting of 19 December 2000, arguments for and against were put forward, some in favor of the use of the girl name, others suggesting that the man also has the right to use the name of his ex-wife. Some have argued that it was a paternalist bill that created discrimination between men and women as well as for homosexual couples. Some have added that this text creates discrimination against cohabitants.

The committee then decided to submit these two texts for consideration to the Opinion Committee on Social Emancipation. The opinion given by this committee was examined at the meeting of our committee on 18 April 2001. A discussion followed as the Opinion Committee recommended the freedom of choice to be given to both men and women, and encouraged candidates to always use their girl name. It is a very important discussion that shows divergent opinions.

For some, emancipation consists precisely in giving women the possibility of choice. This freedom of choice, they say, should also be given to men. Others recommend that women use exclusively their girl name. Others still fear discrimination between men and women. Some groups, PRL FDF MCC and ECOLO-AGALEV, then submit amendments to ensure that the provisions apply to both women and men, and that the scope of application is not limited to municipal and provincial electoral laws, but also propose to amend the Electoral Code.

The Minister insists that this project has a limited scope and requires only slight changes to the electoral legislation.

The submitted amendments and the report of the Opinion Committee open a debate on the civil status issue, the Minister stressing that this matter also depends on the Justice Committee.

The PRL FDF MCC and ECOLO-AGALEV withdraw their amendments and our committee expresses the desire for a broader debate with the members of the Justice Committee. The bill was then voted by six votes for, one against and four abstentions. The joint bill becomes therefore without object.

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Rapporteur, the fact that this bill has followed quite rough paths is proven by the fact that I did not receive a report. Even in this matter, the ideal is obviously not to be achieved. Political renewal and emancipation translate into small adjustments. Even the slightest trend breaking creates the necessary problems.

Mr. rapporteur, you have already explained that this is about the merger of my bill and a bill amending articles of the Municipal and Provincial Election Act regarding the use of the names of female candidates. Both proposals date from April 2000. In my opinion, it is good that they are only discussed now, because discussing such a matter just before the elections does not seem appropriate to me and can only cause confusion.

The original bill proposed by Mrs. Willame-Boonen was actually incidental in nature. They wanted to allow a certain woman to run under the name of her ex-husband. This bill was transmitted by the Senate in July 2000. I have submitted in tempore non suspecto a similar bill of structural nature. In fact, I was of the opinion that women, when they speak of "empowering", should be consistent and should go to the voter with their own name. Both proposals were discussed in the committee. Mr. rapporteur, I was not invited to explain my bill.

(Uncomprehensible interruption by Mr. Paul Tant) Mr. Tante, I was never invited for this. Check that for a moment.

This issue was discussed in the Advisory Committee on Social Emancipation in the months of February, March and April. I was not even contacted by those ladies. This may not be discrimination, but it, in my opinion, at least testifies to little elegance not to invite me to defend my position.

What is the opinion of the Advisory Committee on Social Emancipation? Those ladies think that the freedom of choice should be preserved for the time being, but that this should be depleted in the longer term. Meanwhile, a debate should be held on the use of the spouse’s name and the naming of the children. In fact, one is opposed to the original bill, which stipulates that a divorced wife may use the name of her husband.

The men are comforted, because in the future they will be allowed to use the name of their wives. I think this is not enough. It seems to me normal that a woman, who has already used the name of her husband in politics, may continue to do so because otherwise confusion may arise.

However, I do not find it normal that the husband’s name is still used by the women who are new to politics. Therefore, I find positive discrimination obsolete and we must vote against this bill, which the rapporteur has, by the way, stated that it is “sans object”. Consequently, our group will vote against these two bills.

As a rapporteur, I refer to my written report. I would like to ask a concrete question to Minister Reynders on behalf of my group. On the occasion of the 1st of May celebrations, socialist tenors explicitly advocated the rapid abolition of the securities system as part of the fight against tax fraud. I learned during the discussions in the committee concerning the project of dematerialization of state loans that Minister Reynders is opposed to this removal. Can the Minister confirm this?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, the bill that is submitted to you is concise and has a very limited scope since it is about allowing divorced women to use the name of their ex-husband with the consent of the latter.

The discussions of the Opinion Committee for Emancipation focused more on the use of the name for a woman who engages in politics than on the bill that was submitted to us.

If we must encourage the rising generation, and especially women who are engaged in politics, to keep their own name because we think it is a question of identity, it must be acknowledged that the use of the husband’s name remains relatively common.

Today, many women have built their political careers under the name of their husband or under the double patronymic.

We are not the ones who set these rules. In fact, it was Napoleon who imposed us the use of the patronym. We should have the courage to address the problem of the use of the name on electoral lists but also in all relations with the administration. Several bills are currently on the table, which will open the debate and make the point in a comprehensive and consistent way on the problem of the use and assignment of the surname, as well as on the transmission of this name.

As a member of Parliament, I believe that without making a table-roll of the past, every woman should be able to choose the name under which she wants to appear on the electoral lists, since only women can make this choice.

If the number of women in politics is, in my opinion, insufficient, I would not want the rejection of this bill to result in new barriers to the presence of women in politics.

While custom means that a woman uses the name of her husband or is known under the name of her husband, it is abnormal that she cannot use that recognition or the reputation associated with it, to make a career in politics. by

For all these reasons, I will vote in favour of the bill that is submitted to us.

I confirm the discussion and conclusions in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, from a socio-historical perspective, we are ⁇ not opposed to the existing system, in so far as it remains limited to the older generation. In the past, it was indeed a tradition that women used the name of their husbands and on this basis were known as politica. The social evolution and the emancipatory trend are the reason for us to demand an extinction of the existing system. In this light, we are not in favour of the extension, "à la tête du client", to the former spouse, but rather in favour of a thorough debate on the use of the name and the civil status. We want to come to a system in which everyone — male or female — acts under their own name.

As supporters, both of an extensive system for the elderly and of an equal opportunity policy, we are in the meantime willing to support a proposal to give men the opportunity to also use the name of their wives. Considering all these arguments, we are not in favour of supporting this bill. At the same time, we believe that Mr. Lano’s bill is too drastic and does not take into account a tradition and is too negative for a number of women who are now politically active.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, this bill may not be a necklace, but we have spent a lot of time on it in this hemisphere, in committees and in previous discussions. The women in the advisory committee voted divided and in the committee for internal affairs the vote was also divided. You can’t suspect me that I don’t consider the emancipation of women important, don’t support and don’t take it to heart, but I can’t approve this proposal and this for various reasons.

First, I think that women should use their own name in everyday life, in work, and especially when they are on an electoral list. The proposal remains with the old tradition that women in society exist only in the function of a man, a little like a derivative of it. Thus one speaks of "the wife of" and one does not recognize her as an individual. I think that we should not support that old tradition and that we should not give a signal in the direction of continuing it. We are here to make a change, not to take a step back.

Second, this proposal discriminates against men. Men are not allowed to use the name of their wife on the voting lists. This is not foreseen. Emancipation is about equal opportunities for men and women, and in that sense this proposal is ⁇ no improvement.

There is also a practical problem. The name of the woman, the name of the ex-husband, the name of the new man: where will it end? The box on the voting letters will need to be expanded. Therefore, I also have a concern about this.

Mrs, your analysis is correct, but keep in mind the rights of cohabitants. You may have to take into account the friend, the ex-boyfriend, the future friend, the girlfriend, the ex-boyfriend, the future girlfriend. I will not go into detail about the possible choice of the partner.

Mr. President, it is clear that Mr. Erdman supports me by saying this, in the sense that he is also in favour of women being included on the electoral list under their girl name.

A fourth comment. We unexpectedly found fellow supporters in the VLD, more specifically in Mr. Lano’s proposal. He says he was not invited, but the proposal was scheduled. Unfortunately, he did not come to explain the proposal. For I have read the explanation of your proposal carefully and you emerge as a true feminist, Mr. Lano. I really have to congratulate you for that. In you we have found a future co-starter in a struggle for equal rights and in a struggle of women to function equally as men in society. I can give some understanding of the customs of the past, in the sense that indeed not all women have had the choice to be on the list under their girl name — their own name. In that sense, I was possibly won for a certain transitional period in which women who, because of those practices, from the past are known only under the name of their husband, could have used the two names during that transitional period. This was not included in the proposal.

As you can see, the votes are divided, including in our group. We have agreed that everyone should be guided by their own insights.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I would like to recall three things, and I am expressing myself personally since my group wants to have the freedom of vote on this point.

1 of 1. I would like to remind you that the purpose of a female candidacy in the elections is still to be elected and I have the impression that it is a bit forgotten in this debate.

2 of 2. Women’s emancipation is not what I’m talking about here. It does not depend on the name under which we present ourselves. The emancipation of women is to be legitimized by the suffrage of the voters, regardless of the name under which one presents himself.

3 of 3. This results from a freely agreed agreement between couples. It is the private sphere that decides. Without the consent of the spouse, one cannot use his name.

Consequently, I support the free choice of the candidate woman to present under one or another name and I will in any case support the proposed amendment.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the Prime Minister just said that in addition to the amendments to a number of laws loaded by the Community, he must deal with many other important files. The government thus submitted a draft to help a major discrimination from the world.

A few months ago, during the discussion of this bill, I was almost surprised that the law to help discrimination from the world would in fact bring new discriminations to life. This is a very important, but also very complex dossier.

Several members warned of the possible horrible consequences of the design. According to Mr Cortois, a new discrimination would arise in the sense that cohabitants would not be able to benefit from its provisions. This would indeed be a huge discrimination. Also VU&ID was of the opinion that the same provisions should be provided for men. Again a discrimination. Mr. Tant also argued that a new discrimination was created, because of the difference that would arise between men and women regarding the right – for men – to use or not use the name of their wife or ex-husband.

Discrimination at all, colleagues!

Mrs. Grauwels of AGALEV-ECOLO surprised me when she said that she was won for Mr. Lano’s bill, because that was the only thing that would not result in discrimination. Well, at least not between men and women, Mr. Lano, but nowadays, as you know, there are also “other genders.”

Mr. Lano, you may have had the example of Mrs. Neyts — ⁇ a good friend of you — who would be disguised as Mrs. Uyttebroeck, should the right to use the husband’s name fall away. Again, the provisions of this proposal surprised me.

In any case, it is a peculiar situation where one discrimination takes place for another. After all, men are not granted the right to use the name of their wife or their ex-husband. There are already social contracts for persons of the same sex, while data subjects are not entitled to use the name of the person with whom they conclude that contract.

Colleagues, if this bill is approved now, I warn you that many will feel very discriminated.

There are still examples. For example, whoever has a famous father is of course served on his tips at birth, but whoever has a famous mother falls hopelessly out of the boat because he or she will not be able to enjoy her name-knownness. Also very discriminatory. Imagine that the child of a famous sports figure – I think, for example, of Carla Galle – will not be able to enjoy the name-knowledge that his or her mother has acquired over the years.

A heavenly discrimination is that which falls in turn against homosexuals. This liberal government will soon allow same-sex marriages. But imagine, Mr. Coveliers, that Rudi Borremans, if he throws himself into politics once he is no longer a priest, will not be able to pack out the name of his friend.

It won’t be Danneels, I fear, but his friend is still involved in politics. It may be that Mr. Borremans feels discriminated because he can’t get out with those two names.

Colleagues, bisexuals can have a man and a woman. This Liberty government does not provide for the possibility of using three names in the event of a contest in the elections. This is another discrimination.

For all these reasons, I can only recommend my group members not to approve this proposal. The eviction of a number of people has already been realized. I refer to the deprivation of the drug user, Mr. Verwilghen. The deprivation of the holebi in this case leaves a moment to be desired, so we cannot, unfortunately, approve this.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, I am not going to wind a lot of clothes because we should not make the case ridiculous, but those who have read the opinion of the Advisory Committee on Social Emancipation have very clearly read the position of SP colleague De Meyer and myself. My group will not vote divided, but will vote against in bloc because the SP is in favour of equal opportunities. For us, this means that each candidate on a list best fits under his or her own name and does not use the name of the spouse, let alone of the ex-husband—which seems quite medieval to me—because it suits her or him well. The political ambitions of the person concerned who would use the name of the ex may not reach far, but one wants to use a familiar name or one is the wife of a well-known doctor or lawyer. This is actually an electoral fraud.

Ms. Coenen has attempted to present a number of principled arguments in order to approve this bill, submitted by the Senate. There is no single principled argument possible to endorse this design, as it is a number of women for whom it fits well on the body written. Especially in a Advisory Committee on Social Emancipation we must send out powerful signals and make principled decisions. We will vote against because we believe that everyone should stand under his or her own name.

Mr. Speaker, for once I have to announce in advance that almost everything I wanted to tell has already been said. Before you applaud, colleagues, I ask you to listen to the following addition. I would also like to take the opportunity to try to restore the unanimity in this House, which existed in the Senate, but that is by way of decision.

I have first a practical correction for Mr. Lano, who feels discriminated because he was not personally invited to this discussion. I know that one has to sit in this house for several years and regularly read the committee’s agenda to know what’s going on. This point has been put on the agenda twice. We missed you and after hearing your plea, I know how we missed you.

First of all, I would like to formulate a general concern. I have found that this proposal, which essentially has a symbolic value, has triggered very varied and animated discussions that went completely different from the classic discussions of major designs and proposals. I note that fashion themes also score in this house. I invite everyone from an equally animated debate on other topics. This may be the useful lesson we should remember from this discussion.

I agree with Mrs. Grauwels’ position. It is, in my opinion, essential that someone who wants to be a candidate appears on a list under his own name. I also understand her comment that people who have gained some fame in the “former regime” by using the name of their spouse should continue to have this possibility.

What conclusions can be drawn from these two principles? The conclusion is simple. There is no need to change the law. Why not ? The sociological reality causes more and more ladies to appear under their own name. Those who still want to stand up under the name of the spouse must be able to continue to do so.

However, I would like to make a few ironic comments, Mr. Speaker. One cannot but look at the fact that if one resolves discrimination under the mother, it creates new ones. You can think about this before changing a law. In exceptional cases — Mr. Erdman has already played on family — it may be that a box on the ballot paper takes up almost as much space as the entire ballot paper. Someone who has been separated from the real several times and has the permission of the exes, can perform all these persons to the stage. Per ⁇ the voters think that the candidate in question is ⁇ active and therefore deserves to sit in an assembly. Whether this is a sufficient argument is very questionable.

Mr. Speaker, in extremis, I would like to make an effort to unite the spirits. Many amendments were submitted in the committee in proportion to the length of the proposal. At some point and after a hint from the Minister, all the amendments were withdrawn. Why Why ? Two arguments were used: the individual freedom of each candidate to use the name he wants and the equality principle. If one wants to pour these two principles into a legislative text, there is only one good proposal. Give every candidate – men and women – the chance to appear under an artist name if they need it!

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, especially since I am only the father carrying a bill whose maternity is assured by Ms. William and Vanriet. In this affair which gives rise to many passions, which surprises me because its object is extremely limited, I rely entirely on the wisdom of the parliament.

In fact, the object is limited: it is, on the one hand, to allow candidate women, married or widowed, to include the name of their spouse or of their deceased spouse on the application documents, before or after their own, according to their best convenience. It also allows divorced candidate women, with the explicit consent of their ex-husband, to include this name on the candidacy document. The object here is specific and limited.

Ms. Herzet said something that is very true: when you come to an election, it is to be elected! The name that is used and therefore the notoriety of which it is carried is obviously something important. I do not judge the practice that has been the practice of our society so far, but I believe that women who choose to do so should have the opportunity to present themselves under the name where they are most and best known to avoid discrimination against them.

I add, and the rapporteur had already pointed out in the committee, that this is a faculty, they are not obliged to do so.

On the other hand, what the debate in the committee revealed was that the question raised went well beyond the limited object of this bill. The question, if we want to summarize it simply, is as follows: in all official acts, is there a name under which one must present himself? I have observed various, opposite and sometimes frankly contradictory theses. But this is a fundamental question of civil status that one should not attempt to resolve on the occasion of a proposal of law whose object is limited. by

I think this debate should be conducted. As Mr. said. Erdman smilingly, legal cohabitation is, in the current state of legislation, in no way connected to the problem of civil status. This is a legal arrangement that has effects only in the patrimonial sphere. You can legitimately ask the question you are asking. I recommended in a committee to allow this proposal, which would constitute a provision with transitional effects so that women can present themselves in the best conditions for them. It could also be frankly addressed a more fundamental question that affects the civil state. This could be done in a joint meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Committees.

I will make a proposal in this regard.

I would like to comment on the intervention of Mr. and Tant. In general, I have nothing against male humour although it is sometimes heavy, so when Mr. As much as advertising as it makes humor, it is generally disobeying. Here, he was ⁇ disobedient towards women since he seemed to say that women collected names and therefore conquests. It is the same for men, but as far as they are concerned, it does not appear in their name. by

This confirms my opinion that you must present yourself under your own name. This avoids all these difficulties and it also avoids all forms of somewhat disobeying humor that show well that there is still a lot of underlying ideology behind all this.

Mr. Speaker, the discussions in the Advisory Committee, in the Committee on Home Affairs and in this plenary session make it clear that this draft does not provide any added value. Therefore, we will refrain.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.